I'll play the old washed out, hard drinking ex-war photographer and you'll be the young, hip, law student by day graffiti artist by night up-and-comer. You teach me how to live again with your "art" and I'll teach you what's really important in life and help you tackle the conflict between your art and profession... and then we solve some paranormal mysteries along the way or something.

OK, lets do a test of the relative fairness of various judicial systems. Niko, you go draw some grafitti on a police station somewhere, and let me doucment you doing it. We'll then repeat that in other jurisdictions. Keep notes on what they do to me. Gosh, we could work this up into a criminal justice thesis and end up with Master's degrees! Oh, well, Niko, you may have to take the correspondence couse, as I suspect you'd be sitting in jail. Not to worry. I'll make sure all your camera equipment is well exercised will you're doing time.

The Ridgeback said:
Did they arrest this photographer for aiding and abetting this poster boy?

Guys the original photographer didn't get arrested just because he was taking pictures. The case didn't go to the jury so we probably won't no all the details and I'm just piecing together what MIGHT of happened, but if you look at the photos in his gallery you'll see that they are of the graffiti artist themselves and NOT of the graffiti. They are just photos of him "hanging out" with the graffiti artist. Often they have their faces covered with bandannas.

What got him in trouble was that 1. he broke into the property to "document" the "crime". 2. that he himself might have been helping them by possibly driving "the guys" to the location, carrying some paint or perhaps even spraying too.

He didn't just get arrested for walking past, seeing the graffiti, and then deciding to take pictures of it.

Now this second subway graffiti artist is going to jail because he didn't show up to his court hearing and NOT really because of "his" photos.

Did they arrest this photographer for aiding and abetting this poster boy?
If not why not. seems like double standards.
Oh well glad its the American judicial system.
Our judicial system is bad enough.
sorry just remembered we don't actually have a judicial system.
They would have probably arrested the train driver over here for driving off with his canvas.

The hand of the Law is odd at times, so some gets 11 months in jail for $250 worth of damage to posters that are replaced regular anyway. People have spend less time in the slammer for armed robbery, for putting someone in the hospital after they beat them up or other serious crimes

I'm no Perry Mason but I think my lawyer, I mean his, didn't want to pay the property owner $200 because that would have been admitting guilt. The case pretty much fell apart because the cops some how "lost" key "evidence". Which where photos of the photographer's hands covered with spray paint. Hmmm...

Niko - that wasn't you they arrested, was it?
I'd like to have seen a somewhat more activist judge in this (and a lot of other) similar cases where it appears that the police and prosecutor really crossed the line with non-existant evidence and over-zealousness. But ultimately, if the photog decided to pay the $200 restitution, there's not much the lawyer or judge can do about that.

nah, Nau. Still is a difference. There is a difference between CNN being used to publicise an incident and helping it to fruition. Using the logic of what you stated, the murder victim killed while being robbed is a criminal, because he "instigated" the robber. If victims never had money, no-one would ever be robbed, so obviously, its the fault of the people who are robbed that they get robbed and sometimes killed.

Legally I can see where they are coming from but then again... following that logic every terrorist just want to get on TV that why they doing all that ? right ? so arest the whole CNN and BBC etc crew they are the reason !!!

Ridgeback, we're not trying anyone here, so we don't need proof. Presumably, the prosecuter will need to present proof to the judge. Following someone and taking their photo is not aiding and abetting (although in some places it may qualify as stalking). But to do anything that helps or facilitates the people to commit a crime is a no-no.

Jonas Lara was "documenting" two graffiti artist "at work". The cops show up and everyone takes off running except the photographer because all he was doing was taking pictures and that's not a crime right? Wrong. The police arrest him and ultimately he gets charged with "aiding and abetting".

Warprints, the photographer had been following the graffiti artist for a very long time.

Where is the PROOF that the photographer set this up, If the photographer is documenting grafiti artists, then he would know where they hang out, approach them with a will to photographing them and then photograph them. That's not illegal. Even if he was covertly taking photos.

So what they are saying is that, if the police follow a suspect and photograph him committing a crime (documenting his actions for evidence at a later date) they must be aiding and abetting them. Same argument. The police knew that the people they were following were going to commit the crime and by following them, being there and photographing the crime taking place, they must be guilty of aiding and abetting.

I doubt she'll give a rat's behind if you get arrested (again) Pete but yes she'd be pissed about your son.

Warprints, the photographer had been following the graffiti artist for a very long time so I wouldn't be surprised if he did drive them to the warehouse. Here are some of his photos. It seems like he was more interested in photographing the people and not the actual graffiti.

If you look at it from a property owners perspective then I kind of agree that he was "aiding and abetting". If it were my property that they were "tagging" and my gate/fence that they broke to get on to the property then I think the photographer is just as guilty as the guys spraying the paint.

Interesting item, once again, Niko.
Some things disturb me about this story and extending sympathy to the photog. While the handling of the matter by the prosecutor seems a bit weird, I'm bothered by the implication that the photog may have arranged with the artists to do this painting so that it could be photographed. Around here, that would probably rank up there as a co-conspirator. Aiding and abetting could result from simply doing anything to help arrange the time, place, etc., of the painting to driving them to the scene.
Legally, there should be no problem for the photog with coming upon a scene of illegal activity and photographing it, or (here's where the consitution comes into play) if the artists had simply called a photog and said "we're gonna be at so and so at whatever time, if you want to see us make illegal art." I suspect there is more to the story.